| The Mercurian Empire http://hermertia.com/ |
|
| The Inactivity of Kings http://hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=864 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Gimpy V [ July 26th, 2016, 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The Inactivity of Kings |
Involuntary Inactivity - A king may become involuntarily inactive as well. A king may resume activity immediately upon stating they are active again and participating in the discussions again. The conditions for being declared Involuntarily inactive are; a) Not posting anything for a period of three years b) Ignoring discussions that require king input in the Diplomatic Court for four years. I believe these conditions have been met by Scrios, Arjen and Kyn. I have yet to receive a pm or a post here or in general and I have requested them multiple times. This is a post which demands the attention of the Kings. A) Because we need more kings at the moment and I am a potential candidate. B) Because I have requested their attention way too many times. Until I hear from them they will hereby be declared inactive. (Not in effect until I have confirmation from the minister of justice or another king) |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 26th, 2016, 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
Might need some of the language squared up to make sense of this fully, I know you're on your phone so it's a little bit more difficult. Is this another proposal for the inactivity laws of current Kings/Dukes? |
|
| Author: | Gimpy V [ July 26th, 2016, 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
No I'm saying that Scrios and Arjen are inactive as the law states they need to respond to discussions that require their input. (I missed a link lol) |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 26th, 2016, 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
Should we make an official Stickied Post or something in the Council of the Crowned forum? |
|
| Author: | The Regent [ July 26th, 2016, 7:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
Interesting legal development. I will follow closely too. I mean, the sir potentially has a point, and a court order might be required if no action is met within a timely manner. That itself is a lengthy process though, for it would trigger formal judicial proceedings. |
|
| Author: | Gimpy V [ July 26th, 2016, 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
If you'd like, I posted it here first to make sure I was in the right in claiming this. |
|
| Author: | Gimpy V [ July 26th, 2016, 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
And would it Regent? When has someone being inactive needed a court order in the past? I'm just curious about this. |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ July 26th, 2016, 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
What do you mean by Inactive? Not sure where this is leading but I have been here the entire time and so has Kyn? We have also answered things that need to be answered? Please clarify. |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ July 26th, 2016, 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
Tread lightly when you call out those that are actually active. |
|
| Author: | The Regent [ July 26th, 2016, 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Inactivity of Kings |
It shouldn't go to court, and I think this one won't. But if there is argument citing the letter of the law, and yet different parties disputed, I'd say that could go to a court. In this case I don't think there is a clear case of inactivity, although gimpy does deserve 'access to officials' which is a long-standing rite. The threat of court helps encourage mediation. Perhaps all this already triggered conversations and pms? I'm just rambling btw cuz I'm passing time at a bar. Not making a stand one way or the other on this item. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|